Zero Punctuation: Gears of War 3

[Erttheking]

First off my point was not that putting an emphasis on better story telling is what's wrong with gaming, putting an emphasis on presentation while neglecting gameplay is the problem. ( sorry if i didn't make this clear) You said yourself the gameplay in Enslaved is "frustrating" which it is. The control isn't responsive either( Heavenly Sword had the same problems) I have zero problems with games telling great stories, and having great presentation. I agree with you that it's part of the over all package. The problem arises when it's the only thing the devs seem to have put any care into. Like i said before your game could have one of the greatest stories ever told, but if the gameplay itself isn't compelling and i don't have fun playing it then what is the point?

This is my problem with Ninja Theory, i love the art direction of their games and their presentations but it's wasted on bad gameplay because they don't put as much care into it as the story.( oh and BTW yeah they are handling the gameplay in DmC, it's also using Unreal engine instead of Capcom's MT Framework) This is not a DVD movie i am buying for 20 bucks , where i just sit down and watch. It's a 60 dollar VIDEO GAME. If i don't feel the game is polished, responsive or fun to play i feel that i have wasted my money.

As for Gears story as i have said before if you've ever played the Gears games from the original to the last it has a decent story it's just not told as well as it is in the expanded fiction. Funny thing is the first Gears didn't have much emphasis on story and people complained about that, so in Gears 2 there was greater emphasis on story like people wanted, but then it was made fun of for being too serious. (Sometimes i wonder if "gamers" these days really know what they want. I also wonder how much flack Gears would be getting if it were a PS3 game or multi plat but that's for another thread)

And for what it's worth Gears 3 story attempted to do everything that you claim it doesn't. many of the many characters had their stories expanded on and it attempted to deliver actual character development and in many ways actually succeeded. For example Augustus Cole going back to his hometown and reliving his past glories as a thrashball star ( Serra's version of Football) they even incorporate it into gameplay at one point. Dom's sacrifice IMO was actually well done. Marcus's reaction to it wasn't overblown at all. He didn't shake his fist in the air and vow revenge , he didn't drop to his knees and yell "NOOOOOOO" or any such thing. He reacted as one would imagine to a close friend getting killed, sucked it up and kept on with the mission. In fact all of the squads reactions to Dom's death were well done. I like how the end is bittersweet, they won the war, the locust and lambent are dead. But the government is gone , half the human population is dead, everything is still fucked, and Marcus is like "what the fuck are we supposed to do now?!"

The reason for the Locust Hoard attacking humanity was basically out of necessity rather than the usual alien invasion schtick in these kinds of games. (I also like the fact that the Locusts aren't "aliens" they are native to Serra, it's their planet and the humans are the "invaders".) The story didn't succeed in every way though, their are some things they left open. Like who Queen Mirrah really was and why she looked human. Did she turn her back on humanity, if so then why?

They also didn't continue the story of the creature experiments in that lab in Gears 2. Those complaints aside it's funny that you people accuse Gears of not trying to tel a story then when Gears 2 and 3 were VERY story heavy. (Maybe most of you would realize this if you'd actually played it as opposed to just hating on something popular to seem cool. (You're not impressing anyone) Even with it's flaws i feel that they have gotten a lot better with the story telling going from one to three and i applaud Epic for at trying to better the story and characters, unfortunately everything i said just now will be dismissed since you've already got it in your head that "lol GEARZ HAZ NO STORIES".

Whatever though Gears is a total package, they delivered on nearly everything. Vastly improved the gameplay, the graphics , the performance, and added a fuck load of features to multi and SP. Listen to fan complaints about Gear 2 and fixed everything that was wrong with the game, Lazy release my ass. This so far is my personal GOTY ( we'll see what happens with UC3 and Batman: Arkham City) and just an all around great game. Fuck the haters....

I'm at school so i don't have time for a long post, but i didn't mean to imply "lol GEARZ HAZ NO STORIES" I dont think i said that. And do you know why an emphasis on story made people say gears 2 was too serious? Well it's because gears has ridiculous violence. They intend for it to be slapstick but when you take yourself very seriously the violence is just off putting and unnecessary. Gears is slapstick violence done wrong, bulletstorm is slapstick violence done right.
I dont think there is a focus on presentation over gameplay. I don't think there is any shift away from gameplay. And i know it's being done with unreal but capcom already said they are handling the gameplay. Capcom is working WITH Ninja theory. The devil may cry team is working on dragon's dogma. Ninja theory was hired not because of their gameplay, they were hired because of capcom admired there characters and art.

What's wrong with unreal engine anyway? I'm not an expert on the engine so i have no idea why it couldn't be used to make dmc.
As for gears it's not that yahtzee just found the story forgettable, he found the gameplay sub par as well. He claims the game is inferior to both hard reset and resistance 3. That's not hating, he may enjoy pissing people off but disliking gameplay and finding the story forgettable is just his opinion. I found the gameplay extremely boring in gears 2 but gears 3 looks more enjoyable, playing as monsters anyway.

Let me just insert a little something here, Bulletstorm was a tad like GOW for me, except while I liked GOW, Bulletstorm felt off and I only played through once or twice. Maybe it's because everyone was swearing like it was going out of season, maybe it's that Ishi kept jumping back and forth in terms of personality, maybe it's because Gray smashed the General's ship in a drunken rage and then Ishi gave this great big speech about how he was doing it to avenge those they had killed, but I had a hard time taking it seriously. Personally while Gears tried to play drama after you run around chainsawing people, Bulletstorm tried to do it after electrocuting people, throwing them off cliffs, kicking them into spikes and shooting them in the balls. Frankly Bulletstorm seems like it has twice as much testosterone pumped into it as GOW and frankly I bought the violence in GOW. But then again this whole thing is opinion based.

 

[Brainsaw]

Just in case you're worrying, no you don't have to read the books to know the story. I checked the wiki to learn about one graphical glitch I found annoying to see if I could fix it and ended up learning enough about Sera's story from surfing. Mainly because I'd be damned if I was gonna read anything by Traviss-ty that wouldn't have an entire dev team hanging around to keep her on track.

In regards to this review I will say Yahtzee might as well not have even put it up there. It's a rage-fest with many of his points not even being applicable to the game. I suspect he needed to balance out his rage ratio because of his fairly nice review of Resistance 3.

As for his points on the game the world isn't about to blow up, humanity is being pushed to the point of extinction. This has been in every single game, book, and comic. So saying that it was pulled out of Epic's ass for the third game is freaking dumb as hell. It wouldn't be so annoying if he hadn't played the second one through to the end and it had the same theme of humans going extinct.

As for the Lambent not being any different from the Locust in any practical way I again disagree to a degree. The Lambent drone fight like regular drones with the charming addition of exploding whenever they die. As for the rest, Polyps rush you fast and hard and try to claw you to death and explode when shot. Drudges will either explode in a rather large fashion when shot enough or mutate with most o the mutations giving them enough reach and height to fire over your cover so staying on the move is a good idea. And the lambent boomers aka Gunkers aka the sole reason why I'm not playing through on insane again anytime soon require stupid amounts of ammo to down, possess a lethal ranged attack that they are far to accurate with and with which they expertly lob right over cover and into your face. Melee is a horrid idea as once you're within 30 feet of them they go Alex Mercer on your ass with the extendo-tentacle of doom that will down your ass on normal and murder you out right on harder difficulties.

As for Marcus acting aggrieved I will say I agree with Yahtzee right there. That's one point he got spot on as Marcus is stuck permanently on Grizzled, angry war vet mode. SPOILERS SPOILERS I really didn't get the feeling of Marcus being sad when Dom and Adam Fenix die. I did find both deaths sad, but really that was more of how the game set it up, and how the others characters reacted, and the music choices.

Another point Yahtzee got was Marcus does have a fetish for yelling "Move Out""come one" or some variation. It's kinda annoying but nothing too bad.

As for his stuff on the callbacks to previous games, the lambent were introduced in the first game.

Again the planet isn't going to explode, it never was and the only things that could even count as such happened before the first game when the COG decided to go with the "If we can't have it, you can't either* mindset and used their orbital beam death weapons to burn about 80% of the planet. This has been mentioned in the openeing cutscenes of the first two games so you can't say they don't tell you.

Heck you even visit one of these sites in the third game. It's the blown up city with all the flash-fried statues of ash that were once the local populace. It's one of my lead theories of why the series has alot of brown in it ie the strikes threw up a bunch of ash and dirt and now it's gotten everywhere so hey an actual justification for something I don't give two-lumpy turds about. I like the graphics in all the GoWs, with each new installment it only got better. I loved the Gothic architure of Nexus and I loved the almost Orgrimmar feel of the Savage Locust outpost in the Deadlands area.


As for the rest of his call back points, No, Sam, the Claudia Black character, was a character from the books they included like Jace and Tai from the second game. Thankfully they don't die as Tai's death in the second game held no emotion for me at all. Apparently Epic learned their lesson that people that only play the games do not give a damn about the death of someone whose exploits and characterization is done in a book they didn't read.

The blonde female Anya has been in every game and talked to you all the damn time so how Yahtzee forgot her and yet remembered Adam Fenix is beyond me. Him being alive is hinted at a few times but nothing really solid about him.

Again I watch for the humor mostly as sometimes Yahtzee seems to mail it in on some reviews when it actually comes to the game. He missed several key plot holes he could have torn apart and have a funny review while lambasting the game for stupid or confusing points. Like how did the Locust invade the place that required a submarine to get in when they've never been shown to possess the tech. Or confusing as hell fuel problem for the sub. Took me awhile to figure that one out. I'm kinda disappointed he didn't try Horde or Beast modes which are really fun. You'd think he enjoy bashing through fortifications and Gears alike as a Beserker.

 

[Shraggler]

It boggles the mind that this game has any fans.

I watched my roommate play while I was cooking dinner. He was at some part where they were fighting some big monster (I'm sure this is vague enough to not require a spoiler, as I imagine there were plenty of big monsters). Every second or third hit he would fall down, limping away, waiting for someone to pick him up. The repetitive battle theme in the background would have put Quest 64 to shame. Their terrible, guttural voices barking out "manly" lines grated against my ears. When I finished cooking dinner, he was still fighting the same big monster. When I finished eating, nearly thirty minutes later, he was done.

Granted, my forays into shooters in general have been limited, with Heretic being my shining example of a great, fun shooter. Is this....is this abomination considered good? With the awkward, clunky chest-high walls everywhere, the hilariously disproportionate bodies, the clunky manly-man dialogue...is this good? There was some multiplayer thing where he played as the bad guys, and 60% of the fight was reduced to him breaking down fences so he could kill stupid AI.

Is this fun?

I think the same thing. GoW seems to have the same fanbase as the Madden series and the group of people who lauded Halo like the second coming, blissfully unaware that the PC has "been there, done that". To note: I have nothing against the latter game. Halo was really only innovative in essentially bringing what PC FPS games had been doing for years to consoles, and doing it correctly - namely controls and networked multiplayer. There's no denying that. The ignorant fanbase, however, is what I'm getting at.

I don't get the insane amount of adulation Gears of War, especially Gears of War 3, has been getting. Namely the lead developer/designer/brain behind the series Cliff Bleszinski getting time on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and Fallon seems to be the exact type the game caters to. If I have to explain that point further I will, but it's fairly obvious to me what kind of audience he addresses.

The mere fact that the mind behind the game was put on a widely watched national talk show is baffling to me. It implies that the people behind that appointment really think this game "has something" and is breaking new ground or doing something so innovative and progressive that it deserves national attention and, if possible, reverence.

I played the first game on PC because I got it from someone who bought it for me as a gift. Another friend of mine, hearing this, decided to purchase the game as well because he wanted to see how good the co-op single-player experience was. So we jammed the game for a while. Sure, it was alright fun, but I was far from impressed by it. The gameplay was somewhat repetitive, especially concerning the cover mechanics - that was such a core part of the game that it literally held the experience together. The story was completely forgettable so the plot, and our character's involvement in it, was blurry at best. The co-op system was however fairly well executed and gave positive reinforcement to continue, but that's all that held the reason to play the game together - the fact that another human being was also playing the game in the same vein as you, getting a similar experience and (somewhat) dependent on you to complete it.

I suppose it's preferable to another Call of Duty...

 

[JSRT]

First off my point was not that putting an emphasis on better story telling is what's wrong with gaming, putting an emphasis on presentation while neglecting gameplay is the problem. ( sorry if i didn't make this clear) You said yourself the gameplay in Enslaved is "frustrating" which it is. The control isn't responsive either( Heavenly Sword had the same problems) I have zero problems with games telling great stories, and having great presentation. I agree with you that it's part of the over all package. The problem arises when it's the only thing the devs seem to have put any care into. Like i said before your game could have one of the greatest stories ever told, but if the gameplay itself isn't compelling and i don't have fun playing it then what is the point?

This is my problem with Ninja Theory, i love the art direction of their games and their presentations but it's wasted on bad gameplay because they don't put as much care into it as the story.( oh and BTW yeah they are handling the gameplay in DmC, it's also using Unreal engine instead of Capcom's MT Framework) This is not a DVD movie i am buying for 20 bucks , where i just sit down and watch. It's a 60 dollar VIDEO GAME. If i don't feel the game is polished, responsive or fun to play i feel that i have wasted my money.

As for Gears story as i have said before if you've ever played the Gears games from the original to the last it has a decent story it's just not told as well as it is in the expanded fiction. Funny thing is the first Gears didn't have much emphasis on story and people complained about that, so in Gears 2 there was greater emphasis on story like people wanted, but then it was made fun of for being too serious. (Sometimes i wonder if "gamers" these days really know what they want. I also wonder how much flack Gears would be getting if it were a PS3 game or multi plat but that's for another thread)

And for what it's worth Gears 3 story attempted to do everything that you claim it doesn't. many of the many characters had their stories expanded on and it attempted to deliver actual character development and in many ways actually succeeded. For example Augustus Cole going back to his hometown and reliving his past glories as a thrashball star ( Serra's version of Football) they even incorporate it into gameplay at one point. Dom's sacrifice IMO was actually well done. Marcus's reaction to it wasn't overblown at all. He didn't shake his fist in the air and vow revenge , he didn't drop to his knees and yell "NOOOOOOO" or any such thing. He reacted as one would imagine to a close friend getting killed, sucked it up and kept on with the mission. In fact all of the squads reactions to Dom's death were well done. I like how the end is bittersweet, they won the war, the locust and lambent are dead. But the government is gone , half the human population is dead, everything is still fucked, and Marcus is like "what the fuck are we supposed to do now?!"

The reason for the Locust Hoard attacking humanity was basically out of necessity rather than the usual alien invasion schtick in these kinds of games. (I also like the fact that the Locusts aren't "aliens" they are native to Serra, it's their planet and the humans are the "invaders".) The story didn't succeed in every way though, their are some things they left open. Like who Queen Mirrah really was and why she looked human. Did she turn her back on humanity, if so then why?

They also didn't continue the story of the creature experiments in that lab in Gears 2. Those complaints aside it's funny that you people accuse Gears of not trying to tel a story then when Gears 2 and 3 were VERY story heavy. (Maybe most of you would realize this if you'd actually played it as opposed to just hating on something popular to seem cool. (You're not impressing anyone) Even with it's flaws i feel that they have gotten a lot better with the story telling going from one to three and i applaud Epic for at trying to better the story and characters, unfortunately everything i said just now will be dismissed since you've already got it in your head that "lol GEARZ HAZ NO STORIES".

Whatever though Gears is a total package, they delivered on nearly everything. Vastly improved the gameplay, the graphics , the performance, and added a fuck load of features to multi and SP. Listen to fan complaints about Gear 2 and fixed everything that was wrong with the game, Lazy release my ass. This so far is my personal GOTY ( we'll see what happens with UC3 and Batman: Arkham City) and just an all around great game. Fuck the haters....

I'm at school so i don't have time for a long post, but i didn't mean to imply "lol GEARZ HAZ NO STORIES" I dont think i said that. And do you know why an emphasis on story made people say gears 2 was too serious? Well it's because gears has ridiculous violence. They intend for it to be slapstick but when you take yourself very seriously the violence is just off putting and unnecessary. Gears is slapstick violence done wrong, bulletstorm is slapstick violence done right.
I dont think there is a focus on presentation over gameplay. I don't think there is any shift away from gameplay. And i know it's being done with unreal but capcom already said they are handling the gameplay. Capcom is working WITH Ninja theory. The devil may cry team is working on dragon's dogma. Ninja theory was hired not because of their gameplay, they were hired because of capcom admired there characters and art.

What's wrong with unreal engine anyway? I'm not an expert on the engine so i have no idea why it couldn't be used to make dmc.
As for gears it's not that yahtzee just found the story forgettable, he found the gameplay sub par as well. He claims the game is inferior to both hard reset and resistance 3. That's not hating, he may enjoy pissing people off but disliking gameplay and finding the story forgettable is just his opinion. I found the gameplay extremely boring in gears 2 but gears 3 looks more enjoyable, playing as monsters anyway.

Fir the record i have no problem with Unreal engine, as Gear 3 has shown it is a beast, in the right hands. Problem is NT when it comes to these kind of things are anything but, not to mention DMC games tend to be dependent on 60fps combat. Something UE3 isn't known for and off the top of my head i can think of only one game that runs at 60 fps on the engine.( MK9 i believe) Also while Capcom has a lot of input on how the game plays out, it will be Ninja Theory that handles the actual gameplay. You can already see it in vids of the game where the combat is a lot slower and they added crappy slow mo finishers. Sorry but when it comes to action games NT just can't hang with the likes of Kamiya and Itagaki, as Heavenly Sword proved. Luckily i have Bayonnetta which is the closest thing to a new DMC game as one can get, as well as the best action game out. IMO.

As for your assertion that Gears takes itself too seriously i have two points: First i must once again point out that it was the gamers them selves who complained that it wasn't story heavy enough in the first place which Epic made an effort to do. How can you talk about games needing to focus on story and character development and then shit on Epic ( and i am not talking just about you but in general) for doing just that? I thought that was what you wanted out of gaming.

Secondly you say that, because of the "ridiculous violence" that Gears shouldn't take itself so seriously? Ok fair enough. But then my question becomes this, why does Gears get called out for that when God of War gets a pass for doing the exact same shit? GOW has ridiculous ultra violence, big muscle head character that is always angry, and a story that takes itself waaay too seriously.( in part 3 it got to the point of damn near parody) Yet it gets nothing but praise for everything that Gears of War get's condemned for. Not to mention thought of as the best action game when gameplay wise it's vastly inferior to the holy trinity of action games. ( DMC 3, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Bayonetta) Funny how that works isn't it?

Also it's story was pretty damned forgettable , as i remember it's pretty much Clash of the Titans but EXTREME! Bet half the people that are hating on Gears ( including Yahtzee) love that game...

 

[Griffolion]

I have three words to explain how epic this episode was.

Pink. Jizz. Cannons.

 

[JSRT]

It boggles the mind that this game has any fans.

I watched my roommate play while I was cooking dinner. He was at some part where they were fighting some big monster (I'm sure this is vague enough to not require a spoiler, as I imagine there were plenty of big monsters). Every second or third hit he would fall down, limping away, waiting for someone to pick him up. The repetitive battle theme in the background would have put Quest 64 to shame. Their terrible, guttural voices barking out "manly" lines grated against my ears. When I finished cooking dinner, he was still fighting the same big monster. When I finished eating, nearly thirty minutes later, he was done.

Granted, my forays into shooters in general have been limited, with Heretic being my shining example of a great, fun shooter. Is this....is this abomination considered good? With the awkward, clunky chest-high walls everywhere, the hilariously disproportionate bodies, the clunky manly-man dialogue...is this good? There was some multiplayer thing where he played as the bad guys, and 60% of the fight was reduced to him breaking down fences so he could kill stupid AI.

Is this fun?

I think the same thing. GoW seems to have the same fanbase as the Madden series and the group of people who lauded Halo like the second coming, blissfully unaware that the PC has "been there, done that". To note: I have nothing against the latter game. Halo was really only innovative in essentially bringing what PC FPS games had been doing for years to consoles, and doing it correctly - namely controls and networked multiplayer. There's no denying that. The ignorant fanbase, however, is what I'm getting at.

I don't get the insane amount of adulation Gears of War, especially Gears of War 3, has been getting. Namely the lead developer/designer/brain behind the series Cliff Bleszinski getting time on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and Fallon seems to be the exact type the game caters to. If I have to explain that point further I will, but it's fairly obvious to me what kind of audience he addresses.

The mere fact that the mind behind the game was put on a widely watched national talk show is baffling to me. It implies that the people behind that appointment really think this game "has something" and is breaking new ground or doing something so innovative and progressive that it deserves national attention and, if possible, reverence.

I played the first game on PC because I got it from someone who bought it for me as a gift. Another friend of mine, hearing this, decided to purchase the game as well because he wanted to see how good the co-op single-player experience was. So we jammed the game for a while. Sure, it was alright fun, but I was far from impressed by it. The gameplay was somewhat repetitive, especially concerning the cover mechanics - that was such a core part of the game that it literally held the experience together. The story was completely forgettable so the plot, and our character's involvement in it, was blurry at best. The co-op system was however fairly well executed and gave positive reinforcement to continue, but that's all that held the reason to play the game together - the fact that another human being was also playing the game in the same vein as you, getting a similar experience and (somewhat) dependent on you to complete it.

I suppose it's preferable to another Call of Duty...

Halo was lauded as the "second coming" eh? Guess i was absent on that day, could have sworn people just said it was a really good game.( which it was, go figure) As for the PC having "been there done that" ,i'm not seeing it. I played more than a few FPS's on the PC ( Doom 1 and 2, Quake and Unreal to name a few) and none of them play anything like Halo. Well there was Marathon, but that was made by Bungie.If you are talking about the whole multi player thing, PC's "doing it first" has fuck all to do with consoles, what matters to most people is who did it first there.

Also i love the whole "Halo has an ignorant fanbase" crap. I love how "gamers" these days when they don't like a series feel the need to throw insults at it's fans, you come off far more ignorant than any Halo fan ever could. I guess i could call those who enjoy games i don't like a bunch of fucking idiots, but i lack that overwhelming need to be an asshole. I think a lot of you forgot why it is we play games in the first place. This thread can pretty much be summed up in one phrase, "haters gonna hate"...

 

[Ixal]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

 

[mega48man]

am i the only GoW fan who would use the plot as a reason to support the quality of the game? damn. i dunno about you guys, but i followed the plot pretty well, and even then you don't really need to; humanity is sucking hard, government collapsed, bad guys going through the same problem, why? glowy monsters made of the world's primary fuel source! the world's gonna explode, so go on quest to find guy who can solve all the problems, chainsaw everything and create massive carnage, then watch MLP

now take a look at this; the lambent are made out of imulsion. imulsion is sera's equal to oil, the people use it for almost everything and countries fight for it. at the end of GoW2, a giant monster comes from the imulsion after hearing about the lambent. SO, it's an allusion!

people of sera ---> they fought each other for imulsion and now they're paying for it
mankind on earth ---> we kill eachother for oil in the middle east and look how that's gone over

then something about trading women for bacon, an excellent offer.

 

[JSRT]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

LOL! So now Gear is ruining games? WOW! Gotta love that hyperbole. Yeah lets blame other developers whose games have nothing to do with them for Bioware's fuck ups! While we are at it lets blame Epic for Final Fantasy 13 and 14 being such turds as well. Funny thing is while they talk about "dumbing something down" for a certain audience , Mass Effect was never a complex game in the first place.

 

[Erttheking]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

There is a big, A BIG, gap between a Lancer and an omni-tool blade...how the Hell did you even make that leap?

 

[Taunta]

There is a staggering amount of Gears of War fans that don't understand hyperbole.

 

[screwvalve]

I suppose the CliffyB. Tard is now saying that Yahtzee is a hater and has blocked him on Twitter.

 

[danfrancis83]

Im glad there are some people who don't just accept a game with a bad story. Im sure those who do are the same idiots who like genre fiction. ha

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Ixal]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

There is a big, A BIG, gap between a Lancer and an omni-tool blade...how the Hell did you even make that leap?

Lets see.
A lot of simple minded people buy GoW because of brutal melee finishers (itz kewl...) and praise it for being the best game ever. Other companies see that people care more about brutal melee finishers than story or good gameplay and start to add brutal melee finishers to their games too while neglecting everything else.

 

[JSRT]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

There is a big, A BIG, gap between a Lancer and an omni-tool blade...how the Hell did you even make that leap?

Lets see.
A lot of simple minded people buy GoW because of brutal melee finishers (itz kewl...). Other companies see that people care more about brutal melee finishers than story or good gameplay and start to add brutal melee finishers to their games too while neglecting everything else.

There were no "brutal melee finishers" in Mass Effect. So either you played a different version than everyone else or you are just spewing hyperbole like most in this thread. Also calling others "simple minded" for enjoying games that you don't just makes yo look like an asshole. You're trying too hard to be cool on the internet and you seem unable to comprehend that some people have differing tastes than you. The fact that you attempt to insult people for it shows your own insecurity and need to bash others to make yourself feel better. I wonder at which point did such wannabe fake ass intellectuals started playing video games. Usually these were the people that turned their nose up at people interested in this hobby, when did these pretentious assclowns start buying consoles?

And while you call others "simple minded" for liking something you don't, you seem to simple minded to for your own opinions on a game and instead treat Yahtzee's word as law, when his "reviews" are ment to be entertainment. You little kids are funny.

Im glad there are some people who don't just accept a game with a bad story. Im sure those who do are the same idiots who like genre fiction. ha

And yet MGS4 is highly praised, so there must be quite a few people that love shitty stories more than actual gameplay. Which is why MGS4 has 35 to 40 minute cutscenes. I think people like you should give up gaming and watch movies instead.

 

[Shraggler]

Halo was lauded as the "second coming" eh? Guess i was absent on that day, could have sworn people just said it was a really good game.( which it was, go figure) As for the PC having "been there done that" ,i'm not seeing it. I played more than a few FPS's on the PC ( Doom 1 and 2, Quake and Unreal to name a few) and none of them play anything like Halo. Well there was Marathon, but that was made by Bungie.If you are talking about the whole multi player thing, PC's "doing it first" has fuck all to do with consoles, what matters to most people is who did it first there.

Also i love the whole "Halo has an ignorant fanbase" crap. I love how "gamers" these days when they don't like a series feel the need to throw insults at it's fans, you come off far more ignorant than any Halo fan ever could. I guess i could call those who enjoy games i don't like a bunch of fucking idiots, but i lack that overwhelming need to be an asshole. I think a lot of you forgot why it is we play games in the first place. This thread can pretty much be summed up in one phrase, "haters gonna hate"...

Hey, I'm not trying to insult you or start some sort of jab fest. I've obviously caused you offense but I think we're on the same page, so I'm going to attempt to clear up some points. Keep in mind, "ignorant" doesn't mean "stupid".

I recently received an Xbox 360 and the first game I purchased was Halo: Reach. I have tons of Halo figurines all over the place at work and home. I like the game, but to say that the fanbase (and here the adjective "mainstream" is implied) isn't ignorant to the history and reality of gaming, and where Halo falls into that spectrum, is a fool's errand.

When Halo was released all of my friends who had an Xbox themselves, or had a family member who had one, and were ignorant of PC gaming, were very close to cumming because of Halo. A couple of them stayed up for literally days, playing the game non-stop. I'd come over to their house and they'd be just frothing, "Man, this is the best game ever! It's so good! So much better than everything else!", "You've never played anything like this, dude. It's soooo good!".

Just endless iterations of the above. What I find annoying is the willful ignorance of people like my aforementioned buddies when the random "facts" they interject into their opinions (you've never played anything like this; no game has done this before) are completely refuted and yet they make the same claims. Games have done this, and more, before... and I've played them. PC games had "been there and done that" - from my personal experience: Rainbow Six (eventually with NATO mod), Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Quake III. The reason why it does mean fuck all is that when PC games started really picking up down the FPS route (around 1998), FPSs were consistently featured in the era's computer and gaming magazines, and every developer/studio saw these successes and tried to emulate that success onto whatever platform they were coding for, and most failed.

I am a fan of the game and my point was that it basically took what PC gaming has been doing for years on the First Person shooter genre and successfully implemented it onto a console. Namely good controls and multiplayer support. It was the first console game to do this. Before, there wasn't even a thought of multiplayer support. The idea was laughable. Also before, FPS controls were notoriously terrible on consoles. Every company that ventured down that route met with scorn and ridicule because they couldn't create a stable and reliable controller platform, so right from the get-go, the game they release is shit because the user input was completely flawed. Halo changed this, and did it very well. That is my point. Halo is a great game, and in no way am I saying it isn't. But the ignorant idea that Halo did everything first, and is fervently defended as doing so, is insulting and that's what annoyed me about the player base. That is what I'm calling ignorant.

Also, notice I said "...group of people who lauded Halo as the second coming..." I wasn't talking about the entire fan/player base, but a percentage of the base.

OT: I'll include a new point here: I'm surprised that GoW 3 received this much coverage and Halo (along with its iterations) received comparatively far less, especially on mainstream television. GoW is clearly no where near as important nor industry changing as Halo is and yet it's being praised all over the place, given mainstream interviews on NBC and CBS - anyone else find this disturbing?

 

[Ixal]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

There is a big, A BIG, gap between a Lancer and an omni-tool blade...how the Hell did you even make that leap?

Lets see.
A lot of simple minded people buy GoW because of brutal melee finishers (itz kewl...). Other companies see that people care more about brutal melee finishers than story or good gameplay and start to add brutal melee finishers to their games too while neglecting everything else.

There were no "brutal melee finishers" in Mass Effect. So either you played a different version than everyone else or you are just spewing hyperbole like most in this thread. Also calling others "simple minded" for enjoying games that you don't just makes yo look like an asshole. You're trying too hard to be cool on the internet and you seem unable to comprehend that some people have differing tastes than you. The fact that you attempt to insult people for it shows your own insecurity and need to bash others to make yourself feel better. I wonder at which point did such wannabe fake ass intellectuals started playing video games. Usually these were the people that turned their nose up at people interested in this hobby, when did these pretentious assclowns start buying consoles?

And while you call others "simple minded" for liking something you don't, you seem to simple minded to for your own opinions on a game and instead treat Yahtzee's word as law, when his "reviews" are ment to be entertainment. You little kids are funny.

Funny how you complain about the usage of "simple minded", yet you are not able to read properly.
Mass Effect 3? You know, the one they are going to release next year? I would be very interested in knowing who is "everyone" who already had a chance to play it.
You know what the big, new feature for ME3 is? Brutal melee finishers.
And considering your opinion about insults you are pretty good at them. So I guess you are as insecure as me?

And I stay with using the term "simple minded" because it fits. Why was/is God of War such a big success? Because of the gameplay? No, because you can rip heads off. Thats what the mainstream wants. Not beautiful, interesting or complex stories, most AAA games today hardly have one besides a token "World is in danger, kill dudes to save it!", not challenges they have to overcome as games become more and more easy and no worlds to explore and interact with as the levels tend to be limited to a straight path with no choices and decisions to make in them.
The mainstream, the simple minded people as I call them, they want blood, they want gore, they want explosions. The more graphical they are the better. That is where the success of God of War, Gears of War or Call of Duty comes from. From catering to the people who only care for blood and explosions.
Its the same business like with cinema where the blockbusters are not the intriguing films, but the films with the most explosions in them (likely made by Michael Bay).

 

[JSRT]

I think the entirety of Gears of Wars series runs on bayonet chainsaw vasectomy, because of the whole "HOLY SHIT BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY LOLOLOLOLOLZ!!" mentality of both the producers and the audience who bought them. It was only when they see the later games that comes after GoW that they go, "Hmm...you know, this 'plot' thing might not be such a bad idea after all!"

Well done, boys. Well done.

And sadly "BAYONET CHAINSAW VASECTOMY" now gets exported and ruins other games by dumbing them down go get that audience. Mass Effect 3 being the most recent example.
Thank you guys for ruining video games...

There is a big, A BIG, gap between a Lancer and an omni-tool blade...how the Hell did you even make that leap?

Lets see.
A lot of simple minded people buy GoW because of brutal melee finishers (itz kewl...). Other companies see that people care more about brutal melee finishers than story or good gameplay and start to add brutal melee finishers to their games too while neglecting everything else.

There were no "brutal melee finishers" in Mass Effect. So either you played a different version than everyone else or you are just spewing hyperbole like most in this thread. Also calling others "simple minded" for enjoying games that you don't just makes yo look like an asshole. You're trying too hard to be cool on the internet and you seem unable to comprehend that some people have differing tastes than you. The fact that you attempt to insult people for it shows your own insecurity and need to bash others to make yourself feel better. I wonder at which point did such wannabe fake ass intellectuals started playing video games. Usually these were the people that turned their nose up at people interested in this hobby, when did these pretentious assclowns start buying consoles?

And while you call others "simple minded" for liking something you don't, you seem to simple minded to for your own opinions on a game and instead treat Yahtzee's word as law, when his "reviews" are ment to be entertainment. You little kids are funny.

Funny how you complain about the usage of "simple minded", yet you are not able to read properly.
Mass Effect 3? You know, the one they are going to release next year? I would be very interested who is "everyone" who already had a chance to play it.
You know what the big, new feature for ME3 is? Brutal melee finishers.
And considering your opinion about insults you are pretty good at them. So I guess you are as insecure as me?

And I stay with using the term "simple minded" because it fits. Why was/is God of War such a big success? Because of the gameplay? No, because you can rip heads off. Thats what the mainstream wants. Not beautiful, interesting or complex stories, most AAA games today hardly have one besides a token "World is in danger, kill dudes to save it!", not challenges they have to overcome as games become more and more easy and no worlds to explore and interact with as the levels tend to be limited to a straight path with no choices and decisions to make in them.
The mainstream, the simple minded people as I call them, they want blood, they want gore, they want explosions. The more graphical they are the better. That is where the success of God of War, Gears of War or Call of Duty comes from. From catering to the people who only care for blood and explosions.
Its the same business like with cinema where the blockbusters are not the intriguing films, but the films with the most explosions in them (likely made by Michael Bay).

Again you just can't grasp the fact that some people have different tastes than you and feel the need to insult them for it. It's very unfortunate to have people like you in this hobby. Who the fuck are you to tell people "why they enjoy something" anyway? For all the shit i give the God of War series, i can at least acknowledge that the gameplay is very polished and yes fun.( though it pales in comparison to the queen of action games Bayonetta)
Gears of War was another extremely well made game and yes fun to play. I will say this again this time in all caps, FUN TO PLAY. Do you even get this concept at all? These games can have as much blood and gore as the devs could put into them and it wouldn't mean fuck all if hey didn't have the gameplay to back it up.

If blood and gore were the only reason for these games success, then why wasn't the last Soldier of Fortune game a highly praised, and financial success? It had gallons of blood and cursing in it too. I'll tell you why, the gameplay was shit and it wasn't fun. If blood and gore are the main reasons for games being successful, how do you account for Halo ( the least gory FPS i have ever played) being so successful? For that matter why is Mario still relevant and Mario Galaxy so acclaimed and sold so well, it didn't have violence in it. Not to mention the success of Kinect games like Kinect sports and Dance central, maybe they don't achieve COD like success but they do very well. I will tell you why, they are FUN TO PLAY. I keep using this word "fun" over and over, because overly pretentious asses just don't understand that concept at all.

They don't understand that Micheal Bay movies are "popcorn flicks" and not meant to be "intriguing cinema". They can't enjoy things for what they are because they feel the need to beat their chests and scream at everyone how "intellectual" they are. This is gaming, my friend. It's supposed to be fun. I have been playing games since the fucking Vectrex, i have played games on the Commedor 64, Sega Master system , NES on up to my Xbox and PS3, yet my reasons for gaming have not changed at all. I still play them for fun. Get it? I HATE COD with a passion, but i am not going to shit on people who get enjoyment out of playing it, but then again i am not trying to prove to everyone that i am better than them based on the games i like(lol) Your game could be compared to fucking Citizen Kane story wise, if it doesn't have the good gameplay to back it up, then the developer failed. It's a paperweight.


ME3 has nothing in it compared to the brutal finishers in Gears and even if it did, that's not Epic's fault. It's EA/Bioware's fault for trying to copy Epic. Also Bioware has been on the decline since Dragon Age, Epic and Gears have fuck all to do with that.

 

[idodo35]

well while i love gears and dont realy agree with most of yatzees claims i will say this...
there is ALWAYS a room for expending the clevage (misspeled!) department of the brain!